Or we can just do what we always have done, pretense or not, apply responsibility to others based on the ability to implement self-favoring consequences.
I blame Hitler’s dietician.
All that vegetarian shit probably pushed him over the edge.
Stalin became the way he was because he was never accepted into church choir with his beautiful Russian singing voice.
We are still obsessed with dictators and where things began to go wrong. If not his art teacher, it would have been some other trigger.
Ground hog day man.
I don’t know if history will ever forgive whomever taught Genghis Khan to ride a horse. Or the horse himself for that matter.
His name was uncle Bob…
I was surprised to find this reference in old Mongolian language as well. That horse riding bastard!
Indeed …, one mistake only: Stalin was a Georgian. Anyway: he made his career in Russia / Soviet Union, although he had failed in the male choir.
So, yes, we should blame Stalin’s male choir officer as well as Hitler’s art teacher and dietician.
B.t.w.: In his youth Mussolini wanted to become a girl, but his mother did not allow him to be a girl.
So we should blame Mussolini’s mother as well as Stalins’s male choir officer and Hitler’s art teacher and dietician.
… mmm… something about a village…
//\
That’s some scary shit even for me. :-&
This is a false dichotomy. There are many different options beyond that. Plus, by his own account, it was going to art school, living in a Jewish neighborhood that created his hatred.
This makes assumptions about how he was turned away. Holding what you said as true, why don’t we blame his parents instead for raising such a panty waste.
Enjoy your road to hell, with your good intentions. I’ll deal with truth, at least there I know what is going on and am not dealing with flimsy feelings.
Maybe if Hitler’s parents had drowned him in the bathtub when he was an infant things might have been different. The game of what if is a waste of time.
There is something very profound in the romantic notion of the passage of a time of deep wonder and beauty? This is not to be passed u lightly. A whole era of the being of the depth of existence, passed up to the frivolity of soul thievery is not something to let go lightly. The oversimplification into a mere architecture of the soul, as hitler’s art signified, missed the true calling of the object, which had no true definitional signifier, a mechanic interpretation of the soul, rather, it’s traces could only be apprehended in the after-burn, as the smell of the burning coal left by the engine of the train, leaving dark , black forests of forgotten ness, the mist of a past fairy-world.
[quote=“Simms”]
… mmm… something about a village…[/quote
see pasolini’s solon to get the true horror!
Blame the teachers!
After all they are all pervs and pedos
Don’t forget the priests and little altar boys.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it the art school’s fault. If someone asks a woman out when he’s 18 and she says no, and he later becomes a serial rapist, it’s not her fault. And Hitler was not a poor artist. He just wasn’t good enough to get into the program he wanted to. The Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. They even recommended he become an architect, based in part on his drawings, so it wasn’t even a complete rejection of his skills.
If getting rejected from a school turns you into a mass murderer, than the problem lies in your nature or the primary portions of your nurture - parents, siblings, extended family, long term relations with adults when you a child and so on.
If we give the Art School responsibility for his actions, than if someone posting at ILP goes on a murder spree after people disagreed with his ideas, than people posting here would be responsible.
Further, there are artists who went on to have success after being rejected by mainstream galleries, critics and schools.
Are you really saying that all schools should accept anyone into their programs just in case not accepting them means the person will kill several million?
Or develop a way of achieving the goals he has. I am sure success has been spurred ON by rejection in many case. I will show them. I mean, Hitler ended up trying to take over Europe, North AFrica and Russia. Surely thinking one could achieve this is more hubris than thinking one could find a way to improve as a painter.
That was well done, would you mind expanding upon those thoughts?
Right, with the knowledge that he hasn’t been going about them right so far.
These ridiculous historical “what ifs?” aside, often when a person’s art is criticized as unpleasant, realizing that failure is the only option, or at least assuming as much, he gives up on actual art, and simply works with the same base motive behind much of the worst art out there; self-worth through others.
Basically, in any endeavor, to let the opinions of others effect oneself emotionally, rather then simply absorbing any useful knowledge those opinions may contain, is to become a slave to others in that endeavor. Therefore any such achievement made (except incidentally) will never amount to more than the praise of their masters; who themselves may implicitly take the full credit for the actual products of the slave minded person’s labor.
Yes, in some way he has been gonig about it wrong. Categorizing it incorrectly, approaching the wrong people for their interest and/or support, choosing the wrong subjects/style/form for his skills, not having honed his skills enough and likely some other possible errors or heading off courses.
Well, he also did not get to get into an environment set up to hone people’s skills - I don’t know if it entailed any monetary support. IOW it was a step he considered valuable towards being an artist. This may have been partly correct. It can help to be around other artists, especially more experienced ones and be in a structured ongoing dynamic relation with them around your art. Some people do not need this, but most artists have had this. He might have fought to get very clear feedback on what he needed to improve, contacted other artists, perhaps ones not connected to that school and especially anyone who made it without going through a program like that one. He could have dived back into his work. Tried to come at it critically, really question if he was satisfied and if not, how not, then try to find out how to improve those areas - go to museums and see how others manage this, contact artists, sit in on classes, stalk professors, ask people on the street or in galleries and so on. Not that every potentially successful artist can become one if only he or she tries hard enough, but he sure shut down early. And he was not without talent.
It depends what you mean by affect one emotionally. If it stops you, or you try to please it simply to please it, these are serious problems. But if you are affected and move on in your art with integrity, the emotional upheavals can actually improve the art. Some people do cut off from the emotional dynamic and others are just constitutionally cut off from it, but for me it simply seems human, as a social mammal, to be affected by the reactions of others to what I create. It is what one does with those emotional reactions one has to their reactions that is either useful or damaging. Also there is a communicative act going on. What I or one creates does not need to hinge on the reactions of others, but most are not simply creating for the ether or purely for themselves. Could one really produce a work of art that no one else liked but which was great? Sounds more like a work of therapy or catharsis. That the mob has a distaste for it is one thing, that no peer finds any merit in it is important in some way and like must create an emotional reaction in the artist. If the artist gives up, or stops his or her own process to try to please them, then there is a loss.
I personally blame the aliens. Those bastards!
